Cross-cultural generalizability of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM): Implications for trait and cultural psychology Charles M. Ching a , A. Timothy Church a,⇑ , Marcia S. Katigbak a , Kenneth D. Locke b , José de Jesús Vargas-Flores c , Joselina Ibáñez-Reyes c , Hiroaki Morio d , Sun Wenmei e , Khairul A. Mastor f , Nurul A. Roslan f , Hengsheng Zhang g , Jiliang Shen g , Juan M. Alvarez a , Fernando A. Ortiz h a Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Washington State University, United States b Department of Psychology, University of Idaho, United States c Iztacala National School of Professional Studies, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico d Faculty of Informatics, Kansai University, Japan e College of Education, Henan Normal University, China f Center for General Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia g Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Beijing Normal University, China h Counseling Center, Gonzaga University, United States article info Article history: Available online 19 September 2013 Keywords: Personality and Role Identity Structural Model Traits Cultural psychology Contextualized trait measures abstract The cross-cultural generalizability of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM; Wood & Roberts, 2006) was tested in the United States, Mexico, Malaysia, China, and Japan. Participants rated their general and role identities, as defined by the PRISM, using Big Five trait adjectives, then rated their personality states (i.e., role experiences) in various roles in multiple daily interactions for 14 days. Struc- tural predictions based on the PRISM were supported in all five cultures. Cultural differences were limited and did not reflect cultural differences in individualism–collectivism, dialecticism, or cultural tightness. The results supported the cross-cultural generalizability of the PRISM and the merits of contextualized trait measures in the prediction of role experiences. Implications for trait and cultural psychology are discussed. Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Although the person-situation debate continues, there is gen- eral consensus that behavior is a function of both traits and situa- tions. Nonetheless, personality psychologists still face the challenge of how best to incorporate situational information into trait models. Wood and Roberts (2006) proposed the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM) as one way to do so. Wood and Roberts noted that the construct of roles encompasses many of the expectations, demands, and other psychological meanings associated with situations and proposed that the trait and role constructs can be effectively merged in the concept of role identity. They defined role identity as the traits attributed to one- self within a particular social role. This conception of identity is more specific than typically adopted by identity researchers, who would not, for example, limit the identity concept to self-percep- tions of one’s traits (McConnell, 2011). Having noted this caveat, we adopted the terminology used by Wood and Roberts in our cross-cultural test of the generalizability of the PRISM. In the PRISM, personality is represented hierarchically, with general identities (or traits) at the highest level (e.g., ‘‘I am gener- ally extraverted’’). These general identities subsume role identities, which represent self-perceptions of narrower, context-specific traits in particular roles (e.g., ‘‘I am extraverted with close friends’’). In turn, these role identities encompass typical experi- ences or outcomes such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in the respective roles. A depiction of the PRISM for the trait of extra- version, incorporating five interpersonal roles, is shown in Fig. 1. The PRISM provides a cogent theoretical framework for investigat- ing important questions about the relationship between traits and situations in different cultures. In the present study, we investi- gated the generalizability of the PRISM in five diverse cultures. In addition, drawing on cultural psychology perspectives, we exam- ined whether some of the structural relationships proposed in the model differ in systematic ways across cultures. We first de- scribe predictions of the PRISM and current support in U.S. studies. We then discuss potential implications of cultural psychology per- spectives for the model. 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.012 ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2136, United States. Fax: +1 509 335 6961. E-mail address: church@mail.wsu.edu (A.T. Church). Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) 894–907 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp